There were, of course, many myths propagated by the right after the death of Margaret Thatcher last month. One of the most pernicious was that, by allowing council tenants to buy their own homes, she had somehow provided a gateway for working-class people to a land of milk and honey. Thus, huge quantities of solid council stock disappeared into the private sector and have never adequately been replaced. Barely more than a generation later, Britain is paying a heavy price for Mrs Thatcher's atavistic desire to wipe out any trace of working-class culture, or "society", as she called it.

All over London, former council homes are changing hands for hundreds of thousands of pounds simply because they are in a neighbourhood now deemed chichi by London's cultural elite. The failure to replace social housing stock, and the greed of mortgage lenders, has left millions looking for affordable social housing. For, as we now know, the only real beneficiaries of Mrs Thatcher's council house revolution were financial institutions that have never since stopped thanking their heroine for handing them a multitude of new customers on whom to prey. One global credit crisis, two banking bailouts and one double-dip recession is Mrs Thatcher's real and dismal economic legacy to her country. Three cheers for the baroness.

The work of the UK's housing associations has never been more important. These organisations strive to provide decent homes for people on low incomes. Just as importantly, they provide accommodation for vulnerable people and those who are trying to re-build their lives following criminality, drug or alcohol abuse. Although they operate on a not-for-profit basis, they hold millions in cash and property to invest and purchase where they see fit. It is important, then, that they are accountable and transparent; the work they do on our behalf is too important for a bunch of incompetents.

What, though, are we to make of Scottish Borders Housing Association in the light of some recent events? A few weeks ago, I wrote about the four-year ordeal of Eamonn O'Neill, his wife and twin four-year-old sons at the hands of one James Armstrong, an SBHA tenant. Armstrong, a convicted thug, had issued death threats to Mrs O'Neill and her children, who lived in the property above his. The housing association's failure to evict this man, despite the constant, clear and present danger he was posing to a young family, was shameful. When Armstrong was released from jail, he walked straight back into his home, forcing the family he had terrorised for so long to flee. They had been under the impression that he had been evicted.

Four weeks later, Julia Mulloy, the chief executive of SBHA, is still in her position and there has been no examination of her organisation's role in endangering law-abiding citizens. Perhaps this is what Scottish Labour has in mind whenever it accuses the SNP government of being so obsessed with the referendum on independence that it risks neglecting the day-to-day issues affecting the country.

When I visited the O'Neills to check out the situation for myself, I was so concerned for their safety that I immediately wrote to Kenny McAskill, the justice minister, asking him to intervene personally. I have still to get a reply from him, though I was informed by one of his advisers that the minister had no power to tell a chief constable what to do. Perhaps not, but it didn't stop him unnecessarily and at huge public expense creating a single Scottish police force.

Since then, a whistleblower has come forward, through the Unite union, to talk of a culture of bullying and intimidation at SBHA. The local SNP MSP, Christine Grahame, alone in her party, has acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and has been looking for answers from SBHA. Yet, in a letter to her from Scotland's housing minister that has come into the Observer's possession, it is clear that the minister is being fobbed off. In it, Margaret Burgess states: "I understand that Scottish Borders Housing Association have informed the regulator that they have received a formal complaint regarding their part in the handling of this case. The regulator is satisfied that SBHA are dealing with this complaint in the appropriate manner."

Yet there has been no formal complaint as Dr O'Neill is pursuing the matter through his lawyers. Thus, there is no evidence that SBHA is dealing with the matter in "an appropriate manner". Ms Burgess needs to start doing her job properly and demand answers to this question: why was an innocent family forced to flee their home following death threats by a convicted violent criminal and SBHA tenant?

I'm told that Ms Burgess is a decent soul who may simply have been left gawping in the headlights, so I'll help her out further with some other questions she can ask.

1. Why did SBHA fail to evict James Armstrong when they received clear legal advice from their lawyers (also seen by the Observer) that they could do so?

2. Why did two senior SBHA officials visit Armstrong at HM Prison Saughton last year to negotiate with him the location of a new home in the area?

3. Is it true that Armstrong has been granted a new home 50 yards from the primary school that Dr O'Neill's two boys will be attending in August? And this despite Armstrong having an asbo against him that forbids him being in the vicinity of any members of the family?

Like many other public officials in this case, Margaret Burgess has failed in her basic responsibilities to the public. She can, though, begin to make amends by making a full statement to the Scottish parliament this week. In this, she must address the very serious and extraordinary issue of whether she has been deliberately misled by an organisation under her control. She must also demand the resignation of the chief executive of SBHA (effective immediately). Then she must announce a root-and-branch inquiry into the customs and practices of SBHA.

In the meantime and pending the outcome of that inquiry, the SBHA's licence to operate must be suspended. And, Mr MacAskill, a reply this side of Christmas would be appreciated.• This article will be opened for comments on Sunday morning